- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 777
- Reaction score
- 151
This could apply to adult readers as well, if you want to take the discussion there.
I’m wondering how you, as writers, feel about the argument that children receive few or no benefits from reading what many academics think of as “literary slop”.
The most famous proponent of this argument (as far as I know) is literary critic Harold Bloom. He argues that “mediocrity benefits no one” and that reading books he considers to be mediocre will not help our children much.
A couple links:
http://wrt-brooke.syr.edu/courses/205.03/bloom.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...les/2003/09/24/dumbing_down_american_readers/
The case is made that Harry Potter demands nothing of its readers and does not challenge them to think.
I will take this argument one step further with Twilight. If Harry Potter does not encourage its readers to think, Twilight actually discourages its readers from thinking. The book makes no sense. If you try to read it actively and think about the plot you’ll go crazy because much of what is in the book is nonsense.
What do you think? Do reading books like Harry Potter and Twilight benefit children?
I’m wondering how you, as writers, feel about the argument that children receive few or no benefits from reading what many academics think of as “literary slop”.
The most famous proponent of this argument (as far as I know) is literary critic Harold Bloom. He argues that “mediocrity benefits no one” and that reading books he considers to be mediocre will not help our children much.
Why read, if what you read will not enrich mind or spirit or personality?
I was told that children would now read only J.K. Rowling, and I was asked whether that wasn't, after all, better than reading nothing at all? If Rowling was what it took to make them pick up a book, wasn't that a good thing?
It is not. "Harry Potter" will not lead our children on to Kipling's "Just So Stories" or his "Jungle Book." It will not lead them to Thurber's "Thirteen Clocks" or Kenneth Grahame's "Wind in the Willows" or Lewis Carroll's "Alice."
^^^Emphasis mine. He means that as an insult, suggesting that reading mediocre books as children will lead to reading mediocre books in adulthood.When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.
A couple links:
http://wrt-brooke.syr.edu/courses/205.03/bloom.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...les/2003/09/24/dumbing_down_american_readers/
The case is made that Harry Potter demands nothing of its readers and does not challenge them to think.
I will take this argument one step further with Twilight. If Harry Potter does not encourage its readers to think, Twilight actually discourages its readers from thinking. The book makes no sense. If you try to read it actively and think about the plot you’ll go crazy because much of what is in the book is nonsense.
What do you think? Do reading books like Harry Potter and Twilight benefit children?